Technological developments and the need for employers to monitor employees’ activities and to minimize accidents and hazards require constant adjustments in order to respect the right to privacy. While it may be tempting for employers to replace old surveillance methods with new technologies capable of watching their personnel’s every move, the inclination to use easier and more reliable ways of supervising employees must nonetheless not violate employees’ right to privacy, which, while being more limited in a work context, nevertheless exists.

In a recent Quebec arbitration ruling, Sysco, a food delivery company, had decided to install a DriveCam® safety program inside the drivers’ cabins of its trucks in Quebec. The Union disagreed with the introduction of this new surveillance measure and filed a grievance to have said cameras removed, alleging that they were not only violating the truck drivers’ rights to privacy and dignity, but that they were also leading to unfair and unreasonable working conditions. In addition, the Union claimed that Sysco had failed to establish serious motives which would justify its resort to the use of such invasive surveillance, especially considering the existence of a no‑fault system in Quebec. On its end, Sysco claimed that it was justified to install the cameras as they were meant to (i) be used as a training tool for the drivers, (ii) increase and encourage safe driving and (iii) assist with liability determination or exoneration in case of accident.

In ruling that Sysco was not justified in installing those cameras and ordering that they be removed, the Arbitrator used a two-fold analysis. First, did Sysco have a specific problem that needed to be addressed with these cameras? Second, were these cameras the only way to fix the alleged problem, or was there a less intrusive way to achieve similar results?

On the first part of the analysis, the Arbitrator found that Sysco had failed to establish that it had an existing problematic situation that needed to be fixed. The employer’s concern for prevention regarding safe driving and liability determination or exoneration did not constitute strong motives for which the surveillance would be warranted. Considerable risks revealing an existing problem would have been enough to establish the presence of a problem, but Sysco had not established such a problem. For example, a widespread problem having to do with alcohol or drug consumption during working hours would have constituted a great risk in the matter of safe driving.

With respect to the second aspect of the analysis, Sysco’s concern could easily have been addressed by other less intrusive means, such as training, random safety spot-checks, or cameras installed outside of the trucks rather than inside the cabins. In fact, cameras constantly filming the drivers inside the trucks’ cabins had even proven to be distracting for the drivers, thus potentially creating a greater risk from a safety perspective.

Employers who may be tempted to install such surveillance systems on their fleet will need to remember that any such violation of their employees’ right to privacy will only be justified by identifying an existing specific problem that cannot be fixed by a less intrusive means than the surveillance system the employer wishes to install.

In a decision which returns us to what many thought was the status quo, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that, (save for exempt employees), the unjust dismissal scheme in the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”) does not permit federally regulated employers to dismiss employees without cause once they have one year of service or more. This decision reverses the decisions of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, which had ruled that nothing in the Code precluded federally regulated employers from dismissing non-unionized employees on a without cause basis. As a result, for federally regulated employers, when it comes to dismissal, the right of non-union employees to protection from dismissal tracks the right of their unionized counterparts.

Facts:

In November 2009, Atomic Energy Canada Limited (“AECL”) dismissed a procurement supervisor after four and a half years of service. The employee promptly filed an “Unjust Dismissal” complaint, claiming that he had been unjustly dismissed contrary to the Code. In response, AECL argued that because it had provided the employee with a generous severance package well in excess of his minimum statutory entitlements (i.e. 6 months’ pay), the employee had not been unjustly dismissed. The Adjudicator appointed to hear the matter disagreed with AECL and ruled that an employer could not rely on severance payments, however generous, to avoid a finding that an employee had been unjustly dismissed under the Code.

In a surprise to many, the Federal Court of Canada, and then the Federal Court of Appeal, disagreed with the Adjudicator, holding that nothing in the Code prevented federally regulated employers from dismissing non-unionized employees without cause. The employee appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada:

Writing for the majority, Justice Abella stated that the purpose of the Code’s unjust dismissal scheme was to provide “…a cost-effective alternative to the civil court system for dismissed employees to obtain meaningful remedies which are far more expansive than those available at common law”. In Justice Abella’s view, the remedies contemplated by the Code for non-unionized employees were meant to reflect those generally available in the collective bargaining context. As such, in the federal sphere, the common law right of employers to dismiss “…whomever they want for whatever reason they want so long as they give reasonable notice or pay in lieu” was superseded by the Code, which did not give federally regulated employers such a right.

What this means for Federally Regulated Employers:

For better or for worse, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision provides legal certainty for Canada’s federally regulated employers, as it ends the debate about whether the Code permits without cause dismissals. That said, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision does not mean that an employee’s right to sue his or her former employer in court for wrongful dismissal has been extinguished. As the minority noted in this case, due to a legislative wrinkle, a federally regulated employer can dismiss an employee without cause as long as that employee chooses to challenge the lawfulness of the dismissal in the civil courts. However, if the employee files a complaint under the Code’s unjust dismissal scheme, the notice provided to the employee will not insulate the employer from an adjudicator’s finding that the dismissal was nonetheless unjust.

Accordingly, unless and until the Code’s unjust dismissal scheme is amended to allow for without cause dismissals, federally regulated employers can only dismiss an employee with one year of service or more due to performance issues, a lack of work or the discontinuance of a function. Failure to meet this requirement could result in significant liability for the employer, including reinstatement.

Federally regulated employers take note. The Federal Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that without cause dismissals are not automatically deemed to be “unjust” under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”).

For decades, adjudicators have been at odds with one another regarding the question of whether the Code permits dismissals on a without cause basis. As a matter of background, the Code applies only to federally regulated employers such as banks, railways and telecoms. After years of uncertainty in this area, the Federal Court of Appeal recently decided to end the discord and definitively determine the legal point.

In the case of Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Mr. Wilson was employed for 4.5 years before being terminated on a without cause basis and offered a common law package equal to about 6 months of pay. Mr. Wilson chose not to sign a release in exchange for the offer and instead filed a complaint under the Code which alleged that he had been unjustly dismissed.

After both an adjudication and a Federal Court hearing, the matter proceeded to the Federal Court of Appeal, which found that a dismissal without cause is not automatically “unjust” under the Code and that adjudicators must examine the circumstances of each particular case in order to decide whether or not a dismissal is unjust. In its analysis, the court determined that Part III of the Code (which contains exceptional remedies such as reinstatement of employment) is merely intended to offer employees more remedies than exist under the common law, but only if the dismissal is unjust. The extra remedies granted under Part III do not, however, mean that all without cause dismissals under the Code are automatically unjust.

As a result, federally regulated employees who are terminated without cause must prove that they have been terminated unjustly if they want that conclusion to be drawn. In practical terms, this means that where there is no finding of unjust dismissal, a federally regulated employee can be terminated without cause and simply provided with a notice or severance package. In order to gain the benefit of Code remedies which do not exist under the common law, such as the right to reinstatement, the employee must go the extra step and establish that the without cause termination was “unjust”.

As we reported in a previous blog post that can be found here, the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 makes some significant changes to several Ontario statutes. The legislationreceived Royal Assent on November 20, 2014 and a copy can be found here, but the significant changes include the following:

1. Starting on October 1, 2015, it provides for increases (but not decreases) to the minimum wage under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) based on the Ontario Consumer Price Index. The CPI will be announced by April of each year, with the minimum wage change to come into effect on October 1. This will likely result in the minimum wage changing incrementally every year, creating an additional administrative burden on employers who pay their employees at or near the minimum wage.

2. It eliminates the $10,000 cap on the recovery of unpaid wages through Ministry of Labour Orders to Pay under the ESA. This provision comes into force on February 20, 2015, although the cap still applies to orders made in respect of wages due prior to the date on which the provision comes into force.

3. It requires employers to provide each of their employees with a copy of the most recent poster published by the Ministry of Labour that provides information about the ESA. An employer must provide available translations of the poster if requested by an employee. The poster must be provided to all employees within 30 days of the day on which the provision comes into force, and thereafter (for new employees) within 30 days of the day on which an individual becomes an employee of the employer. This provision comes into force on May 20, 2015.

4. It increases the period of recovery of unpaid wages (i.e. the limitation period) under the ESA to two years, and gives Ministry of Labour inspectors the ability to order an employer to conduct a “self-audit”, whereby it examines its own records to ensure it is in compliance, after which the employer must report back to the officer on the level of compliance. This provision comes into force on February 20, 2015.

5. It expands employment protections to cover all foreign employees who come to Ontario under an immigration or foreign temporary employee program (previously the protections had only been in place for live-in caregivers). This provision comes into force on November 20, 2015.

6. It creates “joint liability” for a temporary help agency and its client for certain ESA violations, such as the failure to pay regular wages, overtime pay, and public holiday entitlements. Although the temporary help agency still has the primary liability, the client is now jointly liable. This provision comes into force on November 20, 2015.

7. It amends the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to add “temporary help agencies” as a recognized definition, and to assign workplace injury and accident costs to the client of a temporary help agency when an employee is injured while performing work for the agency’s client. This provision will come into force on a future date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor, so it is unclear when it will take effect.

8. It expands coverage under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to include unpaid co-op students and other unpaid learners, which will give them protections such as the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to refuse unsafe work. This provision came into force on November 20, 2014.

9. It amends the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in respect of the unionized construction industry’s “open period”, to decrease the time when construction workers can change their union representation (or apply to remove their union) from three months before the expiry of the current collective agreement down to two months. This provision comes into force on May 20, 2015.

Particularly in respect of the changes to the ESA, these expanded powers will likely result in an increase in claims made to the Ministry of Labour, as this process is generally cheaper and faster than court-based civil litigation.

Ontario’s government introduced workplace legislation on July 16, 2014 that would affect five labour and employment statutes in the province. Significant changes that are proposed in the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 include:

Eliminating the $10,000 cap on the recovery of unpaid wages by employees through the Ministry of Labour claim process under the Employment Standards Act, 2000;

Increasing the limitation period to two years for employees to recover unpaid wages through the Ministry of Labour claim process under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The current limitation period is six months or one year depending on the type of claim;

Requiring employers to provide each of their employees with a copy of the most recent poster published by the Ministry of Labour that provides information about the Employment Standards Act, 2000. An employer must provide available translations of the poster if requested by an employee;

Making temporary help agencies and their clients jointly and severally liable for unpaid regular wages and unpaid overtime pay;

Requiring the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board to assign workplace injury and accident costs to temporary help agency clients when an employee is injured while performing work for the agency’s client;

Extending the safety protections under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to unpaid workers receiving training under prescribed conditions;

Decreasing the construction industry’s open period, when construction workers can join a different union close to the end of the term of their collective agreement, from three months to two months;

Expanding employment protections for foreign nationals who are in Ontario under an immigration or foreign temporary employee program. The protections include a prohibition on charging a recruiter fee or taking possession of the foreign national’s property, such as their passport or work permit; and

Tying future minimum wage increases under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 to the Consumer Price Index. The new minimum wage will be announced by April 1 of each year and will come into effect on October 1.

It is currently unclear when the proposed changes will be passed by the Ontario legislature. We will keep you apprised of any developments.

AODA Update: What Employers Should Know About the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, presented by Anneli LeGault

Return to Work Strategies: Sick and Disabled Employees, presented by Jeff Mitchell

Non-Solicitation and Non-Competition Covenants: Making them Enforceable, presented by Andy Pushalik

CHRP Accreditation

This program may be eligible for recertification points.

CPD Accreditation

This 1.5 hour program can be applied toward 9 of the 12 educational hours for Continuing Professional Development required annually by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Please note that these CPD hours are not accredited for the New Member Requirement.

This seminar is also offered via webinar.

To download a PDF of the presentation, or the seminar booklet, click here.

On June 14, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its highly anticipated decision in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30, v. Irving Pulp & Paper, Ltd., 2013 SCC 34 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc34/2013scc34.pdf). In its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada signaled for the first time that employers in safety-sensitive work environments may be justified in implementing random alcohol testing when there is a safety risk in the workplace due to alcohol, such as evidence of a general problem with substance abuse in the workplace.

Facts:

In 2006, Irving Pulp and Paper (“Irving”) adopted a new policy on alcohol and drug use at its kraft paper mill in Saint John, New Brunswick. The mill is acknowledged to be a dangerous workplace with malfunctions carrying the potential for “catastrophic failures”. As part of the new workplace policy, Irving instituted a random alcohol testing program whereby 10% of the employees in safety sensitive positions were to be randomly selected for unannounced breathalyzer testing over the course of a year. In the 15 years which preceded the introduction of this policy, there were only eight documented incidents of alcohol consumption or impairment at the mill. Moreover, there were no accidents, injuries or near misses connected to alcohol.

On March 13, 2006, mill employee Perley Day, was randomly selected to submit to a breathalyzer test. As Mr. Day does not consume alcohol, his test returned a blood alcohol level of zero. Shortly thereafter, the Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the random alcohol testing component of the new alcohol and drug policy was unreasonable; the Union did not challenge the other aspects of the policy.

The arbitration board found that although random alcohol testing may be reasonable in some circumstances, there was not sufficient evidence in this case of an existing problem with alcohol use in the workplace. On judicial review, the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick set aside the arbitration decision. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The SCC’s Decision:

While there was no debate about the safety-sensitive nature of the workplace, the majority held that the dangerousness of a workplace is only the beginning of the inquiry, “[w]hat has been additionally required is evidence of enhanced safety risks, such as evidence of a general problem with substance abuse in the workplace.” That said, Justice Abella, on behalf of the majority, went on to say that “[t]his is not to say that an employer can never impose random testing in a dangerous workplace. If it represents a proportionate response in light of both legitimate safety concerns and privacy interests, it may well be justified.” Considering the particular facts before them in this case, the Court found that random alcohol testing was not justified in the context of the Irving paper mill in Saint John, New Brunswick.

The three judges in dissent noted that an employer should not be required to wait for a serious incident of loss to take proactive steps to mitigate risk.

Barbara B. Johnston and April Kosten represented the Construction Owners Association of Alberta, Construction Labour Relations – An Alberta Association and Enform at the Supreme Court of Canada. Please feel free to contact Barbara or April directly if you would like to discuss the implications of this decision.

What is an employer to do with an employee who demands changes to a job, without ever having done the job? A recent arbitration decision, Child Development Institute and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, local 2132 (June 21, 2012), unrep. (Charney), considered this issue.

The grievor succeeded in her application for a full-time family violence clinician position. Prior to being awarding the job, the grievor had worked for the employer in a part-time capacity. She expressed great enthusiasm and no reservations when she accepted the job. Almost immediately thereafter though, she requested changes to the job’s design. These changes initially were expressed as a preference and were not supported by medical documentation. The grievor seemed to think her changes would be a better way to run the program. The employer disagreed.

Shortly before commencing the job, the grievor raised a concern as to trauma and then provided documentation that she was suffering from serious depression. Her psychiatrist recommended that the employer implement all of the job design changes identified by the grievor.

Although the arbitrator queried, “why one would apply for a job and then without ever trying to do it, decide that it needs to be accommodated”, given the psychiatric evidence that doing the work, as constituted, would either continue or worsen the grievor’s depression, the arbitrator found that she required accommodation. After a few months – which the arbitrator excused as a reasonable period of time – the employer offered the grievor her choice of two possible reintegration plans. The grievor refused both on the basis they did not exactly fit with the accommodation she required. The employer’s third offer of accommodation also was refused.

The arbitrator was critical of the grievor’s intransigence finding that she had a duty to explore the possibilities of the accommodation offered by the employer. According to the arbitrator, “What works and what doesn’t work is an inexact science and to be able to forecast that nothing will work except the exact accommodation that the grievor has sought is a difficult proposition …. It would be more understandable to me that if she attempted the work hardening process and then if it didn’t work she continued to be unable to function, that could be dealt with.”

Given the employer’s limited funding and the funding required to achieve the grievor’s preferred accommodation, the arbitrator found “a classic example of undue hardship”. He also concluded that the employment relationship had completely broken down and it was inconceivable she could return to work. Accordingly, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

This decision is a good reminder that there, in fact, are limits to the duty to accommodate and that employees must work with their employers as part of the accommodation process, not simply make unreasonable demands.

Dentons is the world's largest law firm, delivering quality and value to clients around the globe. Dentons is a leader on the Acritas Global Elite Brand Index, a BTI Client Service 30 Award winner and recognized by prominent business and legal publications for its innovations in client service, including founding Nextlaw Labs and the Nextlaw Global Referral Network. Dentons' polycentric approach and world-class talent challenge the status quo to advance client interests in the communities in which we live and work. www.dentons.com.

This website uses cookies to give you the best user experience, for analytics, and improvement of functionalities of this website and third party sites. You can learn more about our use of cookies and similar technologies and your choices by reviewing our Cookies Policy. By clicking "I agree" you agree to our use of cookies and similar technologies.I agree